We got a big win in the state of California today when a major bill, AB3067 was amended to remove nearly all original language that would have forced rental and homeowner insurance companies to report on you to the state.

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. I would love to see the sad faces of the California legislature right now, knowing that they can't force another unconstitutional gun control law on the people of the State of California. We had a big victory earlier today, and I want to talk to you guys about it, so let's get to it.

Now, real quick, if you're one of those lucky people in the state of California that already has a carry permit or maybe you're now able to get your first Carry Permit, you need to become a member of Attorneys on Retainer. Attorneys on Retainer is not like others; they are actual attorneys. So if you find yourself in a self-defense situation where it might be questionable, you call the number on the back of that card, and they will be there to defend you. An attorney will pick up the phone. I mean, let's face it, not all of us can afford to retain an attorney, but even if you can, that doesn't mean you'll be able to afford that attorney to represent you throughout the entire case. Attorneys on Retainer is absolutely priceless and the best peace of mind that you can have. There'll be a link down below to Attorneys on Retainer. If you use the code CJTV, that'll save you 50 bucks at sign-up for an individual plan and 25 bucks at sign-up for a family plan. So again, check out that link down below.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here because this is pretty exciting. In fact, I believe this is the second win that we've had like this in the state of California in just the last month alone. If you guys watch this channel fairly regularly, you know that we've talked about this in the past. Basically, what California is trying to do is they were trying to have renters insurance and homeowners insurance companies spy on firearm owners for them. So if you rented a home or apartment and had renters insurance or owned a home with homeowners insurance, you would have to include any firearms you owned inside the home, where you kept those firearms, how you stored them, even if they were in your vehicle. You had to put all that information on your renters or homeowners insurance agreement, and then that information would be transmitted so that California could see everything you had, where you had it, and how you stored it. It was like they were de facto spying on you for the State of California.

Now, the bill that we're talking about today that would have allowed California to have all that information was AB 3067. Now, I thought this had a really good chance of passing. I thought this is exactly what they've been looking for; it's going to pass, Governor's going to sign it. But it turns out it's done. This bill is over with, and I think it's because there's been a mass exodus of insurance companies out of the state of California. Policies are too expensive to cover; the prices are too high. There's been a huge issue with insurance in the state of California, and I just don't think that they wanted to mess with that anymore.

So, what happened? Well, California does what it does best. They took the bill, they completely gutted all the language out of it, and then replaced it with something completely different. This is what the bill looked like originally. It would require an insurer by January 1st, 2026, to include questions on an application for homeowners or renters insurance seeking specified information regarding the presence and storage of any firearms kept in the household. The bill would require an insurer to annually report this information to the Department of Insurance and the legislature beginning on January 1st, 2027, and would prohibit the inclusion of confidential identifying information in the report. That's what it looked like in the very beginning.

Now, the entire thing has been stricken. I mean, it's completely gone. All of that language about firearms has been taken out of the bill. So if you're asking yourself, what is the bill about now? Well, yeah, it's completely on the opposite end of the spectrum. The bill now, still AB 3067 as amended, is about interscholastic athletics in the state of California, not about its original intent.

What really surprises me about this is usually how it works, but in the complete opposite direction. It would normally start off as interscholastic sports, make it through the entire process, get voted on by committee, and do everything it needs to do. Then that interscholastic sports language would get removed from the bill, and then the original text would be placed in the bill, and then it would move forward. That's usually how they do things in California because they know what they're doing is unconstitutional. It's the only way to make it go through. This time it actually worked in our favor.

But if you guys remember that video that I did originally on this, and I know that there were a lot of people that were pretty upset about it, you don't have to worry about it anymore. That bill is gone; the language is gone. Well, the bill still exists, but it has absolutely nothing to do with what we originally talked about, so essentially, it's gone. Now, I wanted to share that with you because any win in the state of California, regardless of why or how it happened, is a big win. This is another one that will not be on the books, that will not be on people's renters or homeowners insurance policies that they'll have to fill out. This one is done. Again, it's important that you guys stay up to date on this stuff because they're so creative in the state of California that they just come up with new and unique ways to infringe on your rights almost on a daily basis.

I'll do my best to keep you guys up to date and on track with what's happening there. I want to thank you all very much for watching; I really do appreciate it. Again, make sure you check out AO in the description box, and if you haven't done so already, hit that subscribe button. You guys have a great day.

In this video I break down important developments in the Supreme Court rifle and mag ban cases!

In this video I breakdown a huge win. Oregon measure 114's permit requirement & magazine ban have been struck down!

California's SB1160 by Senator A. Portantino which would mandate annual registration across the state is done. It has been completely amended to the point it has nothing to do with annual registration any more. This is a huge relief for everyone watching this one closely.

The 9th Circuit Court has issued an order in the case of Boland v. Bonta. A case that challenges the California "roster". Boland was waiting before the 9th Circuit after the state appealed an injunction by a Federal District Court Judge which overturned a majority of the "roster" requirements. Now the 9th has decided to delay this case pending "Duncan"

In this video I break down an important update in the Duncan California mag case being reviewed in the 9th Circuit.

Armed Scholar on Social Media:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/armedscholaryt

Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/armedscholar

Today a Federal District Court Judge, appointed by Obama ruled in favor of the 2nd Amendment. This is a special case dealing with a long standing infringement of people with certain overturned or expunged convictions.

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So it's very rare that we get back-to-back 2A wins, especially in the state of California, but that's what we have here. And this time, it didn't come from Judge Roger T Bonitz; this one came from a different federal district court judge, as a matter of fact, appointed by Obama. So let's talk about what's going on.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. As I'm sure everybody watching this video knows, there are a lot of dumb laws in the state of California, and every year they seem to make more and more, even if they don't make sense, even if they're unconstitutional. It doesn't matter; these people are just up there thinking of new ways to restrict pretty much everything that you do in that state. If you ever decide to dive down that rabbit hole, the only suggestion that I have for you is get a helmet because it's a rough ride.

Regardless, one of those laws that is unconstitutional, in my opinion, and dumb, is going to be a law that says if you've ever been convicted of a felony in any other state or anywhere in the world, really, and that felony was then overturned, expunged, removed from your record, whatever, California does not care. They don't care that it was overturned, they don't care that it was washed away, they don't care that it doesn't exist anymore. You have still lost your Second Amendment rights in the state of California for the rest of your life.

So with that being said, there are several people that live in the state of California that had felony convictions in other places for whatever reason. Those felony convictions no longer exist, but they still can't practice their rights in the state of California. So they decided to sue the state. Now, this story, at least the one that I'm going to tell you, is absolutely wild, and you are not going to believe it because one of the people who didn't have their rights while being in California was actually a cop for the last several decades in the state of California. As a matter of fact, he even had his Coe which was issued by the state of California. So we have a guy here that's a cop that was an instructor in law enforcement, had his Coe, but then after retiring and leaving law enforcement, he goes to try and get something personally, and he gets rejected. He's told no, you can't own anything personally because of this law.

So apparently, in the state of California, if you are somebody who had one of these previous felony convictions that has since been overturned, you could become a law enforcement officer, you can train other law enforcement officers, and you could serve the state as much as you want. But the second that you are out of public service, you are now banned from practicing your Second Amendment rights. That is how absolutely nutty this entire thing is. So they decided to, again, sue the state of California and take it before the judge.

Now, like I said in the very beginning, we're talking about an Obama-appointed judge who had some scathing remarks about the state of California and what they were doing here. So this is Judge James Donado, again, an Obama appointee, and he had some things to say about the state of California. Obviously, he had some things to say about James and being a law enforcement officer and everything else that the state of California allowed him to do while he was in public service. But he had some things to say about the other plaintiffs in this case as well. One of the things that he said that I thought was pretty pertinent here is that he said, "The undisputed facts indicate that Linton and Stewart, the other plaintiffs, are also fairly described as law-abiding citizens. Linton is a veteran of the United States Navy with a clean criminal record for the past 37 years. Stewart has had a clean criminal record for the past 48 years. And California simply turned a blind eye to these circumstances and did not account for them in any meaningful way in its discussion of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms."

So the judge is basically saying not only are they not considered felons anymore by the entire country and by the legal system itself, but these guys have been out of trouble. They haven't had any issues with law enforcement since that point, and in these cases, multiple decades that these guys have been exactly what, you know, California says you're supposed to be, a law-abiding citizen. And yet, California just simply overlooked that fact because of this law. And because of that, the judge decided to side with the plaintiffs and say that the plaintiffs have had their rights restricted unfairly and their rights are now restored.

So the judge sided with the plaintiffs in this case, restoring the Second Amendment rights of these people. Now, here's one of the takeaways from this: it only applies to these three plaintiffs right now. And while people might say, "Well, that sucks, it only applies to them, you know, it'd be nice if it applied to everybody else who had a similar circumstance," it does, in a lot of ways, apply to everybody else who has a similar circumstance because all you had to do if you decided to challenge this in court yourself would simply point to this district court judge's decision as precedent for this particular matter.

So where precedent didn't exist in California for something like this before, it does now. You can simply point to the same set of facts and circumstances that were used in this case to essentially win your case without there really being that much of a battle. I, for one, have always thought stuff like this was absolutely ridiculous and completely unconstitutional. Losing your rights for life, your right to vote for life, your right to protect yourself for life, I mean, losing your rights for life for what amounts to nonviolent felony, people. I mean, for instance, one of these guys, it was just a credit card fraud when he was a teenager and apparently, according to him at least, it was an accident, you know, but regardless, he pled down to a third degree with that particular judge, took that plea deal, served his probation, never got in trouble with the law ever again, became a cop, as a matter of fact. And so, you know, that's that. But it doesn't matter to the state of California. It doesn't matter to a lot of states, as a matter of fact. But I have never understood how in this country somebody could lose their rights to for life while at the same time, the court system, the judicial system says they're safe enough to be back out on the streets. If they've been released, they've done their time, their service, whatever it is, and their probation, and they've been released on the streets and they're safe enough to be around us in the general public, then they shouldn't have their rights restricted. That's just my own personal opinion where I stand on that. But again, it's nice to see a different judge view this under the light of the Constitution and in post-Bruin circumstances where the judge even said that the state has not proved that there's a historical precedent for something like this to even exist. So this Obama-appointed judge used Bruin in his decision, but it's just nice to see it come from somebody else. Absolutely love Judge Bonitz. I think everything that he does is pretty much great when it comes to this particular sphere. But it's nice to see other judges that are looking at the rule of law instead of their own personal agenda. So I wanted to share that with you guys. Thought it was fantastic. I do appreciate you guys watching. Please like, subscribe. You have a great day.

The State of California sued the ATF over it's "frames and receivers" rule and the judge sided with California. This has a lot of people confused. Why would the state challenge the rule since its in alignment with their ideals? Well, it's because California doesn't believe they went far enough.

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So today, I've got one that's going to make you shake your head in disbelief. There are a lot of people that are confused here, but I'm sure even by the title, you're wondering what the hell is going on. Well, it's true. California and Gords sued the ATF over their frame and receiver Rule, and you're probably asking yourself why would they do that? What the ATF has done is pretty much in perfect alignment with what California and Gords wants, so what's going on here? Well, today I want to try and clear up some of that because the judge has just issued an order in this case, and it's got a lot of people asking what's going on. So let's talk about it.

Now, real quick before we get started, if you're not subscribed yet, consider hitting that subscribe button. We're really trying to get this Pro-Constitution message out there, and when you hit that subscribe button, that little bell notification, it really helps us do that. It's free, it only takes a second, but it really helps us out a lot. So in advance, I just want to say thank you for subscribing. Okay, so let's go and talk about the state of California vs. ATF.

Now, this can seem very confusing because on the surface, it just looks like the state of California is challenging the ATF on the frame and receiver Rule and on the APA (Administrative Procedures Act). People are wondering why would they do that because again, it seems like the state of California and the ATF are in pretty much perfect alignment here, so why would there be any type of challenge at all? Well, I'm sure you guys know by now what the frame and receiver rule is and what it bans. Basically, it stops people from sending out any type of kit that includes a jig or a template or anything that is milled enough to where it could be considered a frame or receiver. Right? If it's easy to convert, then the ATF basically considers it a frame or receiver. On the other hand, if it doesn't come with a jig or a template and it hasn't been milled out to a certain extent, then it's not considered a frame or receiver. And that's basically due to the fact that if it was considered a frame or receiver, that means that they could basically ban blocks of aluminum or chunks of plastic that haven't been converted at all. So again, there had to be some type of way to consider whether something is a frame or receiver or not, and that's where California comes in.

So, let's just take a quick look at this case and what they're saying here. Now, I should mention real quick that both parties, the state of California and the ATF, asked the judge for a summary judgment, and the judge actually granted both sides summary judgment in part. So we'll talk a little bit more about that too, but let's first get into why California is even attempting to challenge the ATF.

Okay, so what we're going to do is we're going to read directly from the judge's order, and this perfectly explains why California has challenged and essentially won its case against the ATF. So it says right here:

"The final rule also gives examples of what is and what is not a frame or receiver. Example one to paragraph C: 'frame or receiver: a frame or receiver parts kit containing partially completed disassembled Billet or blank of a frame or receiver that is sold distributed or possessed with a compatible jig or template is a frame or receiver as a person with online instructions and common hand tools may readily complete or assemble the frame or receiver parts to function as a frame receiver.' Now that was example one. If we move down to example four to paragraph C: 'not a receiver: a Billet or blank of an AR-15 variant receiver without critical interior areas having been indexed machined or formed that is not sold distributed or possessed with instructions jigs templates equipment or tools such that it may be readily completed is not a receiver.' Just below that is where the judge basically says that it's example number four to paragraph C that this entire lawsuit is about, where it says: 'as reflected by the party's briefs, the party's current dispute essentially boils down to example four and related determinations.'"

So basically, what it comes down to—and this is the easiest explanation possible—is that California actually sued the ATF to tell them that they didn't go far enough when it comes to example four of paragraph C. What is considered not a frame or receiver? California does not like that example. They believe that those things should still be considered frames or receivers and basically sued the ATF to have that part changed, to have that example changed. California wants a chunk of metal or a chunk of plastic on its own to be considered a frame or receiver, and so that's basically what this whole thing boils down to. They're telling the ATF, "Hey, you guys impose some gun control, that's great, we like that, but you didn't impose enough gun control. So, we're going to sue you." Now, like I said in the beginning, the judge actually granted a summary judgment really for both parties. So, they granted in part, denied in part for the plaintiffs, granted in part and denied in part for the defendants in this case. So, the plaintiffs in this case are going to be the state of California. So let's go and read what the judge's decision on this was because this could have a drastic impact on the ATF's final rule or what is supposed to be their final rule and what they're going to have to do about it.

So, it says here in conclusion:

"For the foregoing reason, the court hereby grants in part and denies in part defendant's motion for summary judgment and grants in part and denies in part plaintiff's motion for a summary judgment. The court rejects plaintiff's challenge to ATF's use of the8 in measurement with respect to the Fire Control cavity. However, the court agrees with the plaintiffs that ATF's actions related to example four are arbitrary and capricious in failing to take into account all eight factors related to the term readily assessment, in particular time, and failing to address the impact of easily availability of jigs, tools, and sources other than from the seller distributor of the incomplete receiver. The court therefore declares one subsection of the final rule, example 4, and related agency actions to be unlawful and enjoins defendants from enforcing them, vacates one subsection of the final rule, example 4, and related agency actions, and remands to ATF for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion."

So basically what the judge said there is that yes, he is going to grant and deny in part for both parties, but specifically for the State of California, he has declared that that example four is unlawful. So where the ATF says that these are not considered frames or receivers because they don't come with all these different things, the judge says that that now is unlawful. So he enjoined that, that is no longer enforceable by the ATF, and basically that means that as of right now, there is no example of what is not considered one of those parts. There's no example. Example four has been deemed unlawful by this judge, and so he remanded that back to the ATF to basically redo example four of what is not considered. So now, the ATF, at least if this stands, and I'm sure the ATF will appeal it, but if this stands, the ATF is going to have to rewrite that part of what is not considered. That's basically what is at hand here.

The state of California and the agency both won, but the state of California won the biggest. They basically forced the ATF to come up with even more gun control. It's hard to fathom that the ATF would come out with this final rule, and somebody out there said, "Hey, look, that's not enough, you haven't gone far enough, we're going to challenge you to make it even worse." But that's what you get out of California. That's what you get out of these politicians who have basically looked at every portion of what they're doing and said, "We can make it worse." People of the State of California, the politicians of the State of California, we think that it should be worse, and that's what we want you to do. And unfortunately, the judges in that state were on their side and said the same thing and said, "Hey, make it worse." And so they're forcing the ATF to do just that.

So anyway, I wanted to share that with you, try to clear up some of the confusion. It's all about what's not considered in this case. This is a doozy, let me tell you. And what the ATF's going to do from here, I'm not sure, but we're going to stay on top of it. Again, this is California vs. ATF. Thank you very much for watching, I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe. You guys have a great day.

The 2024 California Legislative Session is proving to be just what we've seen in the past with multiple new bills that would inevitably infringe on the rights of the citizens of California. The latest is AB3067

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. Sorry again about the voice, I'm still feeling under the weather, but California just will not let me rest. This 2024 session is proving to be pretty much just like the rest, where California lawmakers are coming up with just absolutely ridiculous new and creative ways to force gun control on the people of that state. The one that we're going to be talking about today is got to be one of the lowest, snake in the grass, backdoor bills that I have seen yet, and the chances of this one passing are extremely high, so you're going to want to pay attention. Let's talk about it now.

Before we get started, I want to talk about today's sponsor, which is DeleteMe, an amazing service that allows you to get your online privacy back. Believe it or not, there are data brokerage sites out there whose sole mission is to gather and sell your personal data. So what is DeleteMe and how does it help? Well, DeleteMe is a company that cares about your personal privacy, and so what they will do is collect your information and then search those data brokerage sites and remove your personal identifying information from them. Now, I personally have a DeleteMe account, and in just the first week alone, they've already removed my information from 15 sites. Your dashboard gives you all the information that you're going to need in order to control your online privacy. For instance, some of the data you can find on your dashboard are listings reviewed - in my case, there was 8,881 - and the type of exposed data that they found. So if your online data privacy is important to you, join DeleteMe. Use the link down below to save 20%, or use the discount code "copperjacket".

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. Like I said before, this legislative session is turning out to be just like every single one in the past where they come up with new and creative stuff. You guys might remember the video I made last week talking about the new bill that would force annual registration on every single firearm in the state of California, and again, that's every year, including fees, and it's just a huge mess. If you guys haven't seen that video, I'll link that video down below, but I believe it's just the last video because I've been sick. Regardless, that was a huge one that's one we're going to be following pretty closely. This one is it kind of works on the same level except it's a more backdoor and sneaky way of doing it, creating a registry and kind of really peering into your house. So this is a way for California to see now into your home.

So there's a brand new bill, and this bill, which was introduced by Assembly Member Gibson, is AB 367. Okay, so let's go and break this down a little bit before we dive into the bill which will give us a little bit more detail, but essentially what this bill does is the state of California will be forcing insurance companies to spy on you for them and to let them know what you own, where it is, how you have it stored, everything about it. So what we have here is a bill that says to insurance companies, whether they provide property insurance, renters insurance, or homeowners insurance, to add several questions to your policy, and those questions all have to do with your firearms: what you own, how you store them, where you have them, what they are, all that stuff right there. And then once you answer those questions and send it back to your insurer, that information, instead of just staying with your insurer, is now going to be sent to the state of California. So the state of California will know absolutely everything about each homeowner, each property owner, everybody who has an apartment with renters insurance, all of that stuff is going to be going to the state if this bill passes.

Now you might think to yourself, "I'm just not going to fill that information out, they don't need to know about any of that stuff, right?" Well, there's a pretty good chance that if you don't fill that out, guess what's going to happen if something bad happens, right? Let's say that there's a fire, consumes everything, then the investigator comes out later on, notices that you have a bunch of stuff that you didn't put down on there, right? Well, that could be a violation of your policy and all of a sudden they decide not to cover it. It's a total loss, you still owe on it but they're not going to cover it because you said you didn't have those when in fact you did. There's a lot going on here and there's ways that they can try and force people to do it, but for more information let's just dive into the bill itself.

Now try and keep in mind as I've read this multiple times, the one thing that I'm taking away here is that it is for the purpose of creating another registry and this time the registry will be even more detailed because it'll say exactly how you have it and where you keep it and stuff like that so they can hold you accountable later on and like we've all said for decades now registration does lead to confiscation so there is no good purpose for this other than more information goes to the state of California.

So let's just go ahead and read this from the legislative council digest. This bill would require an insurer by January 1st, 2026 to include questions on an application for homeowners or renters insurance seeking specified information regarding the presence and storage of any firearms kept in the household, accessories, structures, or vehicles kept on the property subject to any applicable insurance policy. This bill would require an insurer to annually report this information to the Department of Justice and the legislature beginning on January 1st, 2027, and would prohibit the inclusion of confidential identifying information on the report. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: section 12086 is added to the insurance code to read as follows: In addition to existing regulations and applications for homeowners or renters insurance, insurance shall include questions regarding all of the following: whether there are firearms kept in the household including any accessory structures and if so, how many; whether the firearm, if any, is stored in a locked container in the home including any accessory structures while not in use; the number of firearms kept in a vehicle located on the property such subject to the applicable insurance policy and if any, whether they are stored securely in a locked container while not in use.

An insurer shall update the contents of their applications for homeowners or renters insurance to include the questions regarding the presence, storage, and number of firearms by January 1st, 2026. An insurer shall annually report the information gathered from the questions regarding the presence, storage, and number to the Department of Justice and to the legislature beginning on January 1st, 2027. And it basically continues on with what we've already read. For the purposes of this section, "locked container" has the same meaning as in section 16850 of the penal code - basically, it's got to be a California approved container.

Now, I'm sure you noticed in there that it says this is not supposed to provide any personal identifying information. Well, okay, let's just say for the sake of argument that that actually doesn't happen. I don't believe it, but let's just say for the sake of argument that that doesn't happen. They don't send any personal identifying information up there. But obviously, they're going to send it up there with an address, right? You want to know what the property is, the property here at 0000 whatever way is, has got this, they have this many units, there's this much stuff there, and they send it on up. Well, it doesn't take much to say on January 1st of 2027, so and so lived here on that day. Connecting the dots is as simple as a quick search, especially for the state, right? So matching names up with property insurance and stuff like that isn't hard at all. Not to mention, California gives out stuff to research groups, colleges, universities, they've accidentally leaked them online a couple times, and so this is not something that I would trust to stay with.

But while they have one bill that's completely open and in your face and says, "Hey look, we're going to require you to register them every single year," this bill takes an extra step into your home and says, "Where are they? Are they in your vehicle? Are they in your house? Are they in a locked container? How many locked containers do you have?" I mean, this really takes that extra step into your private property, right into your private business, which I mean, it's all your private business. What I even purchase is none of their business, what store I'm at at the moment is none of their business, but you know, just given the California basically requires a background check for everything right now, they already have that information. But taking it a step further and moving it into your home is a step that I just absolutely despise. I mean, it's just disgusting. It's just disgusting.

But that's the problem with California, is you have all of these politicians who want to try and pander to their base to say that they did something, and since so many somethings have been done in that state, there's no somethings left. So they have to come up with these ultra-creative ways that make absolutely no sense to try and come up with a new something. And that's kind of what we have here. It's just, it's getting out of control. It makes you wonder every single year, how could they possibly come up with anything new? There are already more than 100 laws in this specific sphere in the state of California, and I guarantee you they'll find ways to make more.

So, I wanted to let you guys know about that. It's just another bill introduced in this state, and I'm sure we're going to see more throughout this legislative session. I will bring those to you. If you haven't done so already, hit that little alarm bell that'll let you know when new videos come out, and if you haven't done so, you know, hit that subscribe button. I really appreciate it. Thank you all very much for watching. Have a great day.

Two well established cases are now up for review at the Supreme Court. It only takes one of these cases to overturn all "Assault Weapons" bans across the country including MIller v. Bonta in Ca, Washington, New York etc.

Hey everybody, how's it going and welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So today, I've got some very big, very good news for you. This is so big that it could end all so-called assault weapons bans across the country forever and finally put this thing to bed. Now, you may have heard earlier that a case out of Maryland, which is Bianchi v. Frost, a case that's challenging that state's ban, is now seeking review from the Supreme Court. That case alone could end up overturning all of these bans across the country.

But we just found out that a second case, now a very popular case that you probably have heard about, is also seeking review from the Supreme Court. And now we have two tandem cases from two different circuits and two different states that are now heading up to the Supreme Court at the same time. So let's talk about what's going on.

Before we get started, I want to talk about today's sponsor, which is DeleteMe, an amazing service that allows you to get your online privacy back. Believe it or not, there are data brokerage sites out there whose sole mission is to gather and sell your personal data. So what is DeleteMe and how does it help? Well, DeleteMe is a company that cares about your personal privacy, and so what they will do is collect your information and then search those data broker sites and remove your personal identifying information from them. Now, I personally have a DeleteMe account and in just the first week alone, they've already removed my information from 15 sites. Your dashboard gives you all of the information that you're going to need in order to control your online privacy. For instance, some of the data you can find on your dashboard are listings reviewed; in my case, there were 8,881, and the type of exposed data that they found. So if your online data privacy is important to you, join DeleteMe. Use the link down below to save 20% or use the discount code "Copper Jacket".

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. Like I said in the beginning, the first case is Bianchi v. Frost, that is out of the state of Maryland, and they have filed for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, for the Supreme Court basically to hear their case. Well, we just found out that the second case that's going to be heading up there is one you might have heard of; it is Beas v. Neil. Now Beas v. Neil is a case that is pretty well established. This is actually a case that originally started with the lawsuit against the city of Neil in Illinois, this is before their whole statewide so-called assault weapons ban. The city of Neil decided that they were going to ban the sale. First lawsuit was filed against the city, and then later amended to take on the entire state ban. That case has also filed for a writ of certiorari up to the Supreme Court. So we have those two cases; we have Maryland and Illinois now both heading up to the Supreme Court at the same time.

Okay, so let's go and talk about these two cases and why I believe that the Supreme Court is going to take at least one of them. And we only need them to take one of them because if the Supreme Court finds that these bans are clearly unconstitutional, it would make all other cases moot, including Miller out in the ninth circuit. It would end all of the bans forever. That would be it. There'd be no more playing games, no more dancing around things, no more extending timeout and making these cases last nearly a decade. That would be the end of it. We only need that one. So regardless if Maryland goes up or they decide to hear the Illinois ban, either way if we get a win out of this, it's massive, it's national.

The reason is because these courts, and this is the reason why I believe they're going to take at least one of these, these courts are clearly dancing around. They are basically putting their hand in the face of the Supreme Court and saying, "I don't care what you said, we're going to find our own way to justify these bans." One of the ways that they've been doing that throughout these appellate courts is to say that they're just too close to what's being used in the military. We know that they're not the same thing. We know that they don't have this feature or that feature, but they're just close to what the military uses and therefore the state should be allowed to ban them. So we're going to uphold the ban.

Another argument that has been used and a way to uphold the bans in these states is for these judges to say that these things are clearly dangerous and unusual. And since they consider them dangerous and unusual, they're going to allow the ban to be upheld as well, ignoring Brown altogether. Brown says, "Well, number one, how does it implicate the Second Amendment? You have to basically just look at the text of the Second Amendment to see whether or not this particular thing is implicated." But they're saying, and these different courts are saying, that these are not even considered arms and therefore they don't even have to apply text, history, and tradition because they're not considered arms, therefore not protected by the Second Amendment. And so that's just the end of it for these courts altogether right there.

Now, we all know that they're arms and they're protected by the Constitution. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. The Supreme Court's going to see exactly what the circuit courts are doing here and I think that they're going to have to step in to stop the abuse that has been happening throughout these circuit courts that are even ignoring the common use test. The common use test that says if they're in common use for lawful purposes then they can't be banned by the state. You take a look at common use; there's tens of millions of these out there in common use for lawful purposes today. If you want to know what is considered common use, we could take a look back at the Katano case that dealt with tasers being used by the public for self-defense and at the time that case was decided, there were only hundreds of thousands or a hundred thousand in common use and they considered that to be common use and to be considered arms. So if we're talking about hundreds of thousands and that is enough to uphold the common use test, then tens of millions is clear and undeniable that they are protected.

Now, if we take a look at the petition from the National Association for Gun Rights and Robert Beas in Beas v. Neil, we can see the questions that are being presented in that case to the Supreme Court. So it says here, questions presented:

1. Is the State of Illinois's ban of certain handguns constitutional in light of the holding in DC v. Heller that handgun bans are categorically unconstitutional?
2. Is the incommon use test announced in DC v. Heller hopelessly circular and therefore unworkable?
3. Can the government ban the sale, purchase, and possession of certain semi-automatic firearms and firearm magazines that are possessed by millions of law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes when there is no analogous Founding Era regulation?

So, it's that last one right there that is going to have the biggest effect because not only does it deal with the so-called "assault weapons ban," but it also deals with the ban on magazines that can have more than 10 rounds or what they consider to be a higher capacity.

Now, these two cases, the one out of Maryland is being represented by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition. The one out of Illinois is being headed up by the National Association for Gun Rights. These are very big, no-compromise organizations with incredible attorneys that are capable of arguing this case straight to a win. So that is really good that we have those big names that are headed up to the Supreme Court.

So now starts the waiting game where the Supreme Court is going to take a look at all of the cases that were presented to them and they're going to pick and choose which ones they decide to hear. Now, these two cases being two very big, high-profile cases, I guarantee you are going to be on their radar. I'm sure they're already on their radar and they're going to have to determine whether or not they're going to see one, both, or neither. That's kind of what is up in the air now. So, the Supreme Court's going to have to look at that and determine if they're going to hear any of these. If they do, just based on what the Supreme Court has said in the past, I believe that we would see a massive win here that would again invalidate every single law like this across the country. That would basically be the end of it. We need the Supreme Court to step up. We need the Supreme Court to step in and clarify that these are protected by the Constitution and that bans like this are not allowed to happen. They clarified in DC v. Heller saying you're not allowed to simply outright ban an entire category of firearms for whatever purpose it is because they're in common use for lawful purposes. Here is pretty much the exact same thing. These are in common use for lawful purposes. There are tens of millions out there and so they just need to say basically the same thing that they said in Heller, is that you cannot ban an entire category of arms that are in common use for lawful purposes and that would be basically the end of it right there.

So, the big news is not that just one is going up, it's that two are going up. So now we have double the chance to actually get one of these cases heard and I am excited to see what happens here. So again, now starts the waiting game. We'll see which one, if any, they decide to take. But if they do decide to take one, get ready. I think there's going to be a huge victory for us out of it. So I wanted to share that with you and thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe, and you guys have a great day.